LECTURE XXVI.

PAUL BEFORE THE COUNCIL.

WE have seen,
in the last Lecture, to what danger Paul was exposed, not long after
his arrival at Jerusalem. He was saved from the fury of the Jews, who
intended to put him to death for the supposed crimes of blasphemy against
the law, and profanation of the temple, by the commander of the Roman
soldiers, who kept guard in the castle of Antonia. In the end of the
twenty-first chapter, we are informed, that, after some conversation
with that officer, he was permitted to address the people; and in the
twenty-second chapter, we have an account of his speech. He begins by
assigning the reason, which had induced him, who was once zealous for
the law, and a persecutor of Christianity, to become its friend and
advocate. The sudden and surprising change is attributed to a miraculous
appearance of our Saviour, which convinced him, that he was the true
Messiah, and not an impostor as he had hitherto believed.

There is one
fact, not recorded in any of the preceding chapters, the mention of
which gave great offence to his hearers, and was the occasion of the
abrupt termination of his speech. I shall relate it in the words of
the Apostle. “And it came to pass, that when I was come again to Jerusalem,
even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance, and saw him saying
unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they
will not receive thy testimony concerning me. And I said, Lord, they
know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue, them that believed
in thee. And when the blood of thy martyr, Stephen, was shed, I also
was standing by, and consented unto his death, and kept the raiment
of them that slew him. And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send
thee far hence unto the Gentiles.” It was impossible
350for an unbelieving Jew to
hear this account without the utmost indignation, because, it charged
him and his brethren with the guilt of obstinately rejecting the Messiah,
and represented the Gentiles as chosen to enjoy those privileges, of
which the Jews had proved themselves to be unworthy. This statement
was so contrary to the pleasing idea, that they were the favourites
of Heaven, and to the contempt in which they held the nations of the
world, that nothing can be conceived more mortifying to their pride,
and more calculated to inflame their resentment against the speaker.
Accordingly, although they had listened with calmness to the narrative
of his conversion, “they now lifted up their voices, and said, Away
with such a fellow from the earth; for it is not fit that he should
live. And they cried out, and cast off their clothes, and threw dust
into the air.”

The chief captain, who could not comprehend the cause
of the uproar, either because he did not understand the Hebrew language,
in which Paul delivered his speech, or because he was ignorant of the
points in dispute between the Christians and the Jews, “commanded him
to be brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by
scourging, that he might know wherefore they so cried against him.” He ordered Paul to be scourged, that the severity of pain
might extort
a confession of his crime; for, at present, there was no proof of his
guilt, and the only presumption against him was the general clamour
of the multitude. The barbarous practise of subjecting an accused person,
to torture, was, in certain cases, permitted by the Romans, and has
been adopted by some modern nations, in contradiction to the plainest
dictates of justice and common sense. It is evidently unjust to punish
a man, who, for aught his judges know, is innocent; and there is not
a more precarious method of discovering the truth than the confession
of a person in pain, who cannot be supposed to be master of his own
thoughts, and may be induced to make any declaration, which shall procure
immediate relief from his sufferings. “But as they bound him with thongs,
Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to
scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?” The law forbade a Roman
citizen to be scourged; and Paul inherited this character by birth,
although his parents were Jews. Tarsus, the place of his nativity, was
favoured by Julius Cesar and Augustus; and it is probable, that the
right of citizenship was one of the privileges which the latter had
conferred upon its
351inhabitants. The rank of citizen
of Rome was an honour to which the most illustrious persons aspired.
The chief captain had obtained it with a great sum; and knowing with
what jealousy it was guarded by the laws against every insult and violation,
he dismissed those who should have examined the prisoner by torture.
Paul, although willing to suffer and die for the gospel, had not imbibed
that enthusiastic passion for martyrdom, which impelled some Christians
in the following ages, to court torments and death, by voluntarily accusing
themselves at the tribunals of the heathen magistrates. Acting upon
this sober and rational principle, that, if we can avoid sufferings
without deserting our duty, we ought to avoid them, he pleaded his civil
rights, as a defence against the cruelty of the men, into whose hands
he had fallen. But, as there was no law forbidding a Roman citizen to
be imprisoned, he was detained in the castle till the next day, when
the great council of the nation was summoned to meet.

The assembly,
before which Paul appeared on this occasion, was that which was commonly
known by the name of the Sanhedrim, and was the highest court in the
nation. The Jewish writers affirm, that it subsisted during all the
ages of their commonwealth, and was instituted in the wilderness, when
seventy elders of Israel were chosen to assist Moses in the government.
The Sanhedrim was composed of the same number of members. Some, however,
are of opinion, that its commencement can be traced no farther back
than the return from the Babylonian captivity. It was a court to which
appeals were made from the sentences of inferior judicatories; but there
were some causes of greater difficulty and importance, in which it claimed
a sole right to judge. When our Lord said, that “it could not be that
a Prophet should perish,” that is, should die by a judicial sentence, “out of Jerusalem,” he seems to have referred to the
Sanhedrim, which
met in that city, and assumed the exclusive authority to try the pretensions
of the Prophets, and to punish those who were found guilty of imposture.
In the degenerate times, which preceded the downfal of the Jewish state,
a true Prophet was more likely to be condemned, than to be recognised
and honoured by men, who were corrupted by false notions of religion,
and by the vices of the age. The Council was now summoned by the chief
captain, as it had been called together, at the birth of our Saviour,
by Herod. Its independence was lost, and its jurisdiction was abridged,
during the reign of that
352king, to whom it was an object
of jealousy. The Roman commander brought Paul before the Sanhedrim,
because he appeared, from the clamours of the people, to have been guilty
of some offence against their laws; and, probably, that court asserted
its right to judge him as a blasphemer of Moses, and of their sacred
institutions.

In the presence of this august assembly, Paul was not
abashed and intimidated. Alone in the midst of enemies, who had both
the inclination and the power to injure him, he surveyed them with an
undaunted countenance; supported by consciousness of innocence, and
the expectation of that assistance, which Jesus Christ had promised
to his disciples, when they should be brought before governors and kings
for his sake. Instead of endeavouring to disarm their resentment, and
to court their favour by any mean concession, or any retractation of
his principles, he dared to assert the purity of his motives, and the
rectitude of his conduct. “And Paul earnestly beholding the council,
said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God,
until this day.”

The import of this declaration is easily understood,
from the frequent occurrence of the same language in ordinary conversation.
When a person affirms, that he said or did any thing with a good conscience,
he means, that he was not influenced by improper motives, but by a conviction
of duty; and that his own mind was so far from condemning him, that
it approved of his conduct. In this sense, Paul could truly assert,
that he had lived in all good conscience before God, not only since
his conversion to Christianity, but also prior to that remarkable change
of his views. “I verily thought with myself,” he says, in his speech
to king Agrippa, “that I ought to do many things contrary to the name
of Jesus of Nazareth.” When opposing him and his religion, he was fully
persuaded, that he was performing an acceptable service to God, because
he sincerely believed our Saviour to be an impostor. Still he was “a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an injurious person; but
he obtained
mercy, because he did it ignorantly, in unbelief.” His activity did
not originate in malice, but in a mistaken idea of duty. That he acted
with the same integrity in the subsequent period of his life, it is
impossible to doubt. It was upon the most satisfactory evidence, that
he embraced the religion which he had persecuted, and from the purest
motives, that he underwent so much toil and suffering in propagating
and defending it. “This was his rejoicing, the testimony
353of his conscience, that
in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the
grace of God, he had his conversation in the world.” The design of the
declaration which he now made, was to assure his judges, that whatever
construction they were disposed to put upon his conduct, it was not
from caprice, or with an interested view, that he had passed over to
Christianity, but from the unbiassed dictates of his mind; and that
he was now as firmly convinced of its truth, as he had ever been of
the divine authority of the law.

Ananias, the high-priest, offended
at the presumption of Paul, who had spoken before leave was granted
by the court, and still more at this bold testimony to the goodness
of the cause in which he was embarked, commanded those who stood by
him, to “smite him on the mouth.” Among the Jews, this seems to have
been a customary mode of expressing reproof and contempt. Zedekiah,
a false Prophet, “smote Micaiah a Prophet of the Lord on the cheek,
and said, Which way went the Spirit of the Lord from me to speak unto
thee?” and when our Saviour stood before Caiaphas, the officers “smote him with
the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, who is he that
smote thee?”

“Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite
thee thou whited wall.” A whited wall, or a wall daubed with plaster,
which gives it a goodly appearance, is an expressive figure to denote
a man, whose real dispositions are different from the character which
he assumes. “They are sordid and base,” says a heathen philosopher,
speaking of some persons who made a false show, “but outwardly they
are adorned after the similitude of their walls.” From the high-priest
and the president of the Sanhedrim, the strictest regard to justice
might have been reasonably expected; but the conduct of Ananias too
plainly showed, that he was liable to be transported by passion, beyond
the bounds of decorum, and was capable of violating the law, when he could do so
with impunity.” Sittest thou to judge me after the law,
and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?” It was contrary to the
law, which forbade the judges “to do any unrighteousness in judgment,” and
directed them, when a person was accused, “to inquire, and make search, and ask
diligently,” before they passed sentence upon him, to order a man to be smitten,
who had not been proved guilty of a crime. “God,” says Paul, “shall therefore
smite thee.” These words ought not to be considered as a passionate exclamation,
or an imprecation
354of vengeance;
because the Apostle had learned the lessons of patience, meekness, and
forgiveness, in the school of Jesus Christ, was, on all other occasions, an
illustrious pattern of those graces, and, as we have reason to believe, from the
promise of our Lord to which we lately referred, was now particularly assisted
by the Spirit. They may be understood as an intimation founded upon the
threatenings of Scripture, of the punishment which a man guilty of such
injustice, should sooner or later incur, unless he repented. We may even suppose
Paul to have been under the impulse of the prophetic Spirit, and that by his
inspiration he now foretold the fate of Ananias. The supposition has great
probability, because he undoubtedly enjoyed, at this time, the presence of the
Holy Ghost, by whom he was enabled, in many other instances, to predict future
events. “God is about to smite thee, thou hypocrite.” As Ananias is said to have
suffered a violent death, the correspondence between the event and the plain
import of the words, favours the idea, that they were intended as a prophecy. To
this view of them, it may, indeed, be objected, that the Apostle, as we shall
afterwards see, did not know Ananias. But, he knew him to be unworthy of the
station which he held as a member of the Sanhedrim; and as the organ of the
Spirit, he might have denounced his doom, although he had been totally
unacquainted with his person and character.

To the by standers, the language of
Paul seemed unguarded and indecent. He had reproached a man, whose character
should be held sacred on account of his office. “Revilest thou God’s high-priest?” Paul answered,
“I wist not brethren,” or I did not know, “that he was the high-priest:
for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.” This was a wise law, founded in the principles of
justice and expediency.
Not only is respect for our superiors necessary to the support of their
authority, which is weakened by want of confidence in their talents
and virtues; but when we consider that they are but men like ourselves,
whose judgments are not infallible; that they may err with the best
intentions, and while they have no object in view but the public good;
and that they are often surrounded with persons whose interest is to
deceive and mislead them; we shall perceive the equity of requiring
us, to be candid in forming an opinion of their proceedings, and cautious
in our language, when it is necessary to blame them.

The answer of the
Apostle is attended with some difficulties. How was it possible, it
has been said, that Paul should not have
355known Ananias, since he had
now been several days in Jerusalem, and had frequented the temple, where
the high-priest would be often seen? Besides, as he was president of
the council, and wore certain badges of his office, must he not have
been distinguished, at a single glance, by his seat and his dress? Two
methods have been adopted for removing this difficulty. The first supposes,
that Paul did know Ananias, but refused to acknowledge him to be high-priest;
the second presumes that he was ignorant of both his person, and his
official character. Those who think, that the Apostle knew him, consider
his words, “I wist not,” as equivalent to “I do not acknowledge,” and
they assign the one or the other of the following reasons why he did
not acknowledge him; either that the Jewish priesthood was now abolished
by the death of Jesus Christ, who had assumed the character of high-priest
of the Church, and had an exclusive right to it; or that Ananias was
in truth not the high-priest, but had intruded himself into the office,
or purchased it with money; and Paul had learned from Gamaliel, that
a person who had procured an office by bribery, should not be recognised
as a judge, and was not entitled to respect. Neither of these comments
upon the words of the Apostle, and least of all the first, will recommend
itself to such as love simplicity, and believe, that on this, as other
occasions, he studied plainness and candour in expressing his sentiments.
Both represent him as using the word “to know,” in an equivocal sense,
which is hardly consistent with honesty. Others think, that Paul having
been long absent from Jerusalem, might really not know Ananias to be
high-priest, especially as the office was not now held during life,
but passed, at the will of the Romans, from one person to another in
such quick succession, that three are said to have possessed it, in
the short space of a year; that the Sanhedrim having probably been assembled,
not in the usual place, but in the castle, he might not have appeared
in his official dress, nor in his ordinary seat; or that, upon the supposition
that Paul did know him and his dignity, he might not observe among so
many judges, who commanded him to be smitten, and the high-priest was
the last man, whom he should have suspected to be guilty of so gross
a violation of the law. Any of these solutions may be considered as
satisfactory; but more, I apprehend, has been said upon this subject
than was necessary. The difficulty, if not created, has certainly been
magnified, by the elaborate attempts to explain it. Paul was a man so
little disposed to conceal his sentiments on
356the most trying occasions,
so little liable to be driven to any mean shift or evasion by the presence
of danger, that we might have contented ourselves with his simple assertion, “that he wist not that Ananias was the high priest.”

But, if Paul had
known the rank of the person, who commanded him to be smitten, would
he have refrained from speaking as he did? Does not this seem to be
the import of his reference to the law, “Thou shalt not speak evil
of the ruler of thy people?” And if his language admitted of correction,
where was the promise of the Saviour, “that he would give a mouth
and wisdom to his Apostles, which all their adversaries should not be
able to gainsay nor resist?” This is a greater difficulty than the other,
although it has attracted less attention; but it may be satisfactorily
explained. Paul, I apprehend, does not quote the law, with a design
to convince his accusers, that as he distinctly remembered it, he could
be charged only with an unintentional transgression. Ignorance of the
person of the high-priest would not have acquitted him from a breach
of the precept, which was equally violated by reviling the other members
of the Sanhedrim, who were all invested with the dignity of rulers.
Nay, to speak evil of any man, although the lowest and most obscure
member of society, was contrary to the law of love, which has, indeed,
received new enforcements from the gospel, but was binding under the
Mosaic dispensation. The question to be considered is, whether Paul
was actually guilty of reviling Ananias; and it may be confidently answered
in the negative. If, as we have already supposed, he was under a prophetic
impulse, his language, however different from the style, in which ordinary
men are bound to address their civil and ecclesiastical superiors, was
not disrespectful. In truth, the words were not his own, but the words
of God, who pours contempt upon the wicked princes of the earth, and
counts them as vanity. A Prophet claimed superiority to the greatest
of men; and it was the prerogative of his office to reprove magistrates
and kings, and to denounce against them the judgments of Heaven. Our
Lord, who never “rendered railing for railing,” and “when he was reviled,
reviled not again,” called Herod the tetrarch, “a fox,” on account of
his cunning and cruelty.

We are next to consider, by what expedient
Paul defeated the design of the Sanhedrim, which, we may confidently
affirm, from our knowledge of the implacable enmity entertained by the
unbelieving Jews against the disciples of Jesus, had assembled with
a
357premeditated resolution to condemn
this ringleader of the Christian heresy. It was by dividing his enemies,
and inducing one party to espouse his cause from opposition to the other. “And when Paul perceived, that the one part were
Sadducees, and the
other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am
a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the
dead I am called in question.” The Pharisees and the Sadducees were
the chief religious sects among the Jews, with the one or the other
of which all the persons of learning, and rank, and fashion, were connected.
The Sadducees acknowledged the divine origin of the Jewish religion,
and of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, for there is no satisfactory
evidence that they received only the five books of Moses; but they interpreted
the promises in a temporal sense, and maintained, that obedience was
rewarded, and sin was punished, only in the present life. They denied
the existence of any spirit besides God, or of any separate spirit;
for they rejected the immortality of the soul, and asserted that it
died with the body. It is not easy to conceive on what ground they could
controvert the existence of angels, who are so often represented in
the sacred books of the Jews, as appearing, and speaking, and acting;
but it is probable, that they imagined them to have been transient appearances,
or temporary emanations of divine power. Having discarded from their
system the immortality of the soul, and a future state of retribution,
they were necessarily led to deny the doctrine of the resurrection. “The Sadducees say, that there is no resurrection, neither
angel nor
spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.” The religious creed of the
latter was more consonant to Scripture, to the suggestions of conscience,
and to the expectations of the human race. They believed not only that
angels were real beings, but that the soul should survive the body,
be reunited to it at a future period, and share in its happiness or
its misery. The tenets of the Sadducees were embraced chiefly by the
rich and the great, who wished to enjoy the pleasures of life, without
the dread of a future reckoning; while those of the Pharisees were espoused
by the lower orders, and by all the sober part of the community. From
the opposition of their principles, and a competition for power, the
two sects regarded each other with jealousy and aversion.

When Paul
perceived that the one part of his judges were Sadduces, and the other
part were Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Men and brethren,
I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of
358the hope and resurrection of
the dead I am called in question.” Some may be disposed to consider
this declaration of his sentiments as an artifice or stratagem, scarcely
consistent with simplicity and manliness of conduct. But, Paul asserted
nothing but what was strictly true; for he had once belonged to the
sect of the Pharisees, and he still retained so much of their creed
as related to the resurrection of the dead, and the subjects connected
with it. He was now standing before the Sanhedrim, because he had affirmed
the resurrection of Christ, which was not only a proof of his Messiahship,
but is the grand evidence of our future triumph over the power of death.
It will, perhaps, be objected, that there was a great difference between
the doctrine of the Pharisees upon this point, and that of Christianity;
for, that according to Josephus, they did not hold the resurrection
of the same body which had died, but the transmigration of souls, or
their passage from one body to another. But, in this instance, we may
suspect his accuracy, or his fidelity. He has either ascribed to the
whole sect an opinion which was entertained only by a few; or with the
same disregard to truth which has led him to accommodate other parts
of his history to the taste of the Gentiles, he has not scrupled to
render the doctrine of the resurrection more palatable to them, by representing
it as nearly allied to the notions of Pythagoras and other philosophers.
There is no doubt, that the ideas of the Pharisees were in substance
the same with those of the Scriptures. Paul knew them as well as Josephus,
and would not have ventured to misrepresent them, in the presence of
the chief men of the sect.4545De Bello Jud. lib. ii. cap. 12.

No blame can be justly imputed to the Apostle
for this avowal of his sentiments, although it was made with a design
to divide the members of the council. Our Lord has recommended to his
disciples “the wisdom of the serpent,” as well as “the harmlessness
of the dove;” not the practice of deceit and wicked policy, but the
enlightened prudence, which knows how to improve favourable opportunities,
and to avoid danger without a desertion of duty. No man is required
to die for religion, unless he cannot live, but by renouncing and dishonouring
it. If a seasonable declaration of the truth would save the life of Paul, by
what law was he bound to be silent? And, if by so innocent an expedient he could
turn the hostility of the adversaries of the gospel against one another, while
359during the contest he should
escape, was he not perfectly justifiable in making use of it? It will
throw additional light upon his conduct to remark, that he was now before
judges, from whom he had no reason to expect an impartial trial. The
high-priest had already commanded him to be smitten contrary to the
law; and he foresaw from this commencement, with what violence and disregard
of justice the business of the court would be conducted. He was, certainly,
at liberty to employ any means, consistent with truth and honour, to
deliver himself from so iniquitous a tribunal.

The plan which he adopted
was successful. “And when he had said so, there arose a dissension
between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the multitude was divided.” In the ninth verse we are farther told,
“that there arose a great cry:
and the Scribes that were of the Pharisees part arose, and strove, saying,
We find no evil in this man; but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken
to him, let us not fight against God.” How powerful is the influence
of party-spirit in forming our opinions, and swaying our affections!
It confounds our moral perceptions, and incapacitates us for judging
impartially of either our enemies or our friends. Those who have yielded
up their understandings to its government, see every object through
a deceitful medium; and in their eyes, the characters of others change
from bad to good, and from good to bad, according as they approach or
recede from the arbitrary standard of excellence, which they have presumed
to establish. When Paul was introduced into the presence of the Sanhedrim,
he was regarded by all the members as a heretic and a blasphemer. But,
no sooner has he declared himself in favour of the Pharisees, than he
is pronounced by them to be an innocent person. What! could they find
no evil in the man, who had openly apostatised from Moses, and preached
through Jesus the resurrection of the dead? No; the thought instantly
occurs to them, that an angel or a spirit may have spoken to him, and,
his doctrine may be a revelation from heaven; and they gravely admonish
the court to beware of opposing him, lest they should be found guilty
of contending with God himself. And what was the cause of these new
and liberal sentiments respecting Christianity? Whence do the Pharisees
begin to suspect it to be true? Some have been inclined to put a charitable
construction upon their conduct; but there does not appear to be any
sufficient reason for attributing it to conviction, and it may be accounted
for by a less honourable principle. Paul had avowed one of the peculiar
360doctrines of the Pharisees
in the presence of their rivals, whom they were always eager to humble;
and the merit of this action atoned, in their eyes, for all the heresies
which he was said to have propagated. They were willing to allow, not
from a change of their views, but from opposition to the Sadducees,
that the gospel might be true, because it lent its aid to support one
of the distinguished articles in their creed.

In this way, I think,
their conduct should be explained. But, by whatever motive they were
influenced, the contest between them and the Sadducees became so vehement,
and was carried on with so much noise, that the Sanhedrim could not
proceed in the trial. The chief captain being afraid lest Paul should
fall a victim to the violence of the parties,” commanded the soldiers
to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring him
into the castle.” In this manner, the design of the Jews against him
was defeated; and he was preserved, as the Lord told him the following
night, to bear testimony to the gospel in Rome, as he had already done
in Jerusalem.

To this discourse I shall subjoin a few practical inferences.

First, We learn how desirable it is to enjoy the testimony of a good
conscience, particularly in the season of adversity and trial. A well-grounded
persuasion of the goodness of the cause in which we are engaged, and
consciousness of the purity of our motives, will support our minds under
reproach, and arm us with courage in the midst of dangers. A conscience
enlightened by Scripture and purified by faith, will prove a source
of satisfaction, into whatever difficulties we are brought by our religious
profession; whereas the man whose heart accuses him of insincerity,
must blush at his own baseness, even when his hypocrisy is rewarded
with the most flattering commendations A good conscience is a preservative
from remorse and fear, two inmates which torment the soul in which they
reside. What embarrassment and anxiety should the Apostle have felt
in his present circumstances, had he been acting the part of an impostor?
But, we have seen him collected and undaunted; and being at peace with
himself and with God, he did not dread the power of the Jewish rulers,
who had condemned his Master, and were actuated by the same hostile
sentiments towards himself. “If our heart condemn us not, then have
we confidence towards
361God;” and when we can look up
to him as our friend and guardian, “we shall not fear what flesh can
do unto us.”

Secondly, Let us be careful to discover a meek and quiet
spirit, when we are injured and ill treated by others. We, indeed, hear
Paul, when Ananias commanded him to be smitten on the mouth, saying, “God shall smite thee, thou whited wall.” But we should
consider that
the actions of other men which were right, are to be imitated by us,
only when we are in the same circumstances; and that it is an abuse
of examples, to make a general and indiscriminate application of them.
The disciples wished to be permitted to bring down fire from heaven
upon a Samaritan village, as Elijah had done to the bands of armed men,
which were sent by the king of Israel, to seize him; but they had not
the spirit of Elijah. Paul, we have reason to believe, was moved by
the Spirit of prophecy; and words spoken under a divine impulse, however
severe, were not inconsistent with Christian charity. Our rule is plain, “not to render railing for railing, but to bless
them that curse us,
and pray for them that despitefully use us, and persecute us.” Above
all other examples is that of Jesus Christ, who instead of upbraiding
his murderers with their wickedness, and denouncing the vengeance of
Heaven against them, said, when he hung upon the cross, and felt their
cruelty in every member of his body, “Father forgive them: for they
know not what they do.”

Lastly, How easily can God defend his own cause!
By a word spoken in season, the designs of the Jewish Sanhedrim against
Paul were defeated. When the enemies of the truth are united to oppose
it, they are but men; and God says to his Church, “Who art thou, that
thou shouldest be afraid of a man that shall die, and of the son of
man which shall be made as grass?” At his command, their breath goes
out, or their power and their wisdom strangely fail, so that “their
hands cannot find their enterprise.” Besides, although in their conspiracy
against religion, they seem to be in perfect concord, yet they are influenced
by very different motives, which may happen to clash with one another;
and in the common affairs of life, they are divided by envy, jealousy,
resentment, and an interference of pursuits. There is no true friendship
among the wicked; it is merely a temporary connexion of interest, or
a combination of mischief. With how much ease can Providence turn their
union into open hostility, as in the case of the Ammonites, the Moabites,
and the inhabitants of mount Seir, who having invaded
362the land of Judah, in
the days of Jehoshaphat, perished by one another’s sword; or in that
of the Pharisees and Sadducees, who spent the fury, which was ready
to burst forth upon Paul, in mutual clamour and contention? Let no good
man ever act the part of a coward. God is with him; and who shall harm
him, if he is a follower of that which is good? Let no good man despair
of the interests of religion. Is not the arm of Omnipotence able to
protect the cause of truth against every adverse power? “Why do the
heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the
earth set themselves, and the rulers take council together, against
his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away
their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall
have them in derision. Then he shall speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them
in his sore displeasure.”